Welcome to TypologyCentral

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

I suspect citizens being armed with guns would be a nuance for the government, but not prohibitive of it controlling the population. There are much larger mechanisms of control available to the government - especially with biological weapons.

To be honest ? No, not really.
Armed people are greatest nuance for people that live around them. Governments almost always have bigger and more advanced guns, much more options in the terms of propaganda and basically unlimited funding. Therfore people armed with assult rifles do not really bother goverments that much. I am from the country where guns are in general illegal and people prefer it that way. Here people think that it is far more likely that they would be killed by some self-righterous maniac than the government bodies. Also since military and all forms of law enforcement are made of people who live among general public it is expected that they will not turn against innocent people. What is indeed quite true from what I see.

I would make a rule that every American has to live for a few months in a unarmed society just so that they get the idea how that works. Since in America that kind of environment does not exist and you can't experience this kind of social dynamic by living there. Unarmed society is build on trust that typical American never gets the chance to fully develope ... and that is probaly one of the main reasons why most of you feel exiled and go to emotional therapy of some kind.

Until you become a threat to the powers that be. And, ideological threats always look the most frightening. Then you can become a martyr, if you're lucky you won't have to die. Change is difficult, imposing change is always essentially violent. If not the death of lives, then for livelihoods, which essentially are one and the same. Violence should only be discarded or considered entirely on it's effectiveness, but will all to often be the go to when change is necessary.

Of course people will die. Of course there will be violence from the existing power structure. I think it would be naive to think otherwise.

However, some of the most revolutionary movements of the past century have occurred without a single shot being fired. Participating in violence to overthrow a violent system just makes you complicit in perpetuating that system. I think in ideological struggles, tactics matter, and if you really are fighting for principle you can't undermine it for short-term gain. It is the definition of winning the battle but losing the war.

One of my favorite stories in recent history regards how Congresswoman Barbara Lee came to the decision to not vote for the bill the resolution that would instate the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which granted effectively unlimited power to the executive to pursue anyone who might have been involved with 9/11. She said that she atteneded a sermon at the National Cathedral held for all Congressional Members right before the vote, and the minister said as kind of a gentle reminder to all those gathered there, that "As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore." It was the thing that convinced her to become the sole person in either house to vote against the bill.

Of course people will die. Of course there will be violence from the existing power structure. I think it would be naive to think otherwise.

However, some of the most revolutionary movements of the past century have occurred without a single shot being fired. Participating in violence to overthrow a violent system just makes you complicit in perpetuating that system. I think in ideological struggles, tactics matter, and if you really are fighting for principle you can't undermine it for short-term gain. It is the definition of winning the battle but losing the war.

One of my favorite stories in recent history regards how Congresswoman Barbara Lee came to the decision to not vote for the bill the resolution that would instate the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which granted effectively unlimited power to the executive to pursue anyone who might have been involved with 9/11. She said that she atteneded a sermon at the National Cathedral held for all Congressional Members right before the vote, and the minister said as kind of a gentle reminder to all those gathered there, that "As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore." It was the thing that convinced her to become the sole person in either house to vote against the bill.

Either way, long way to say that I don't agree with you.

Heterosexual norms, including any exclusive heterosexual pair bonding, have been discarded globally by a majority heterosexual population without a single act of violence, I'd call that pretty revolutionary, and I dont mean in a good sense, without any ill will toward homosexuals anywhere.